National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nepa Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on 18 November, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, complainant is a Public Sector Undertaking claiming a sum of Rs. 54,75,03,540/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 13.2.99 till the date of payment. Complaint is against another Public Sectary Body i.e. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. This complaint was filed on 12.7.2000. On two dates on 19.12.2000 and 30.1.2001 when the complaint came up for hearing, it was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the complainant. Again it was adjourned on 20.3.2001 at the request of counsel for the complainant to seek instructions to withdraw the complaint as both the parties belong to Public Sector. Thereafter, complaint was dismissed in default and subsequently restored and notice again issued to the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board-opposite party.
2. Written version has since been filed. We have, with the help of counsel for the parties, gone through the complaint. The details of the amount as claimed is given in para 36 of the complaint as under:
"The complainant submits that the said claim of Rs. 54,75,03,540/- was worked out as under:-
3. The claim had been denied by the opposite party. On the face of the complaint no argument is needed to show that a great deal of evidence both oral and documentary would be required for the complainant to prove its case and the claim would even otherwise show that complicated questions of facts and law would arise which is not possible for the National Commission to decide in its summary jurisdiction. Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Ors. - (2002) 2 SCC 1 held that such types of cases cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. In Civil Court parties will have full opportunity to lead evidence. Consumer Forum is not meant to try the cases like the present one. In another case of Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi - JT 2002 (6) SCC 1 Supreme Court has held that there is no difficulty for the National Commission to decide such cases involving complicated questions of law and facts. In that case the Supreme Court was considering the argument of the opposite parties-doctors that complaint which are pending against them since 1994 should be relegated to Civil Court as complicated questions of law and facts would arise. But then it is left to the wisdom of the National Commission to take up a particular matter or not. The case like the present one should be left to be decided by the Civil Court.
4. We would, therefore, reject this complaint and left the complainant to go to Civil Court for the reliefs claimed or even seek arbitration if permitted in law. Complainant may seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while matter was pending in this Commission, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute - (1995) 3 SCC 583.